9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Aadinath Industries i.e. the exporter of the present appellant is also found forged but It is also an apparent fact mentioned in the show cause notice itself that the export invoice for the containers was signed by the Central Excise Officer which later got forged. Similar had been the modus operandi in case of M/s. Arihant Industries but apparently there is no such allegation vis- -vis M/s. Arihant Industries. In the present case, there is no evidence for the appellant to be the beneficiary of any drawbacks as alleged to have been wrongly received by the exporters. There was no need for any proceedings under CBLR to have been initiated against appellant. Department could not produce any evidence proving violation of 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. Accordingly, the order under challenge confirming said violation is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TEHCNICAL) Shri Alok Agarwal and Shri Prachit Mahajan, Advocates for the Appellant Shri M.R. Dhania, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER DR. RACHNA GUPTA The appellant herein is a customs brokers having a license valid up to 04.10.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding the present appellant. Vide which the appellant M/s. Akansha Logistics was proposed to be imposed with penalty under Section 114 (iii) of Customs Act, 1962. A suitable action as per regulation 19, 20 and any other regulation under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was also proposed against the appellant. The appellant was accordingly alleged to have contravened Regulation 11 (d) and 11 (n) of CBLR, 2013. Hence another show cause notice no. 26/2023 dated 11.05.2023 has been served upon the appellant proposing revocation of his license and imposition of penalty upon the appellant. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the Order-in- Original No. 64/2023 dated 11.10.2023. Being aggrieved of the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Alok Agarwal and Shri Prachit Mahajan, learned Advocates for the appellant and Shri M. R. Dhania, learned Authorized Representative for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the license of the appellant has been revoked vide the impugned order under challenge observing that the appellant has failed to advise their clients regarding filing of authentic/correct documents and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identity of their clients, validity of their address. In fact the exporters were found to be non-existent. These facts are sufficient to suggest a serious lapse on the part of the customs broker leading to potential revenue loss. Hence, the action initiated against them, including the appellant, under CBLR, 2013 was actually required. The findings of the order under challenge are based on the evidences against the appellant. The containers were found to be stuffed with only 40 cartons contrary to the declared 70 cartons per container. The invoices submitted to Central Excise Department were different from those produced for customs clearance with discrepancies in the exporter s name, carton count and net weight. It is only the customs broker who can be held responsible for such lapses, hence there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Baraskar Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai reported as 2009 (244) ELT 562 (ii) Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra reported as 2016-TIOL-13-SC-CUS Accordingly, appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the sides and perusing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts. 5.3 We further observe that with respect to the show cause notice dated 31.03.2023 as was issued to the exporter and of the customs brokers under Customs Act, 1962 with respect to the same investigation as is in the present case, the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2023 has already been announced. The adjudicating authority has already held that customs brokers had no role in the present case of alleged fraud committed by the exporters. It has already been held as follows: 44.4 It is a matter of record that the Customs Brokers were engaged by the exporter for filing of Shipping Bill and were provided with the Invoice and Examination Report allegedly bearing the signatures of Central Excise Officers certifying the factory stuffing of goods in the containers. The Examination Report also had reference of the FSP under which the stuffing of containers were carried out under the supervision of the Central Excise Officers. In such a situation, when the Customs Brokers had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents or the genuineness of the exporters, merely filing Shipping Bills on the basis of these documents and completing the customs formalities for export of such consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent exports is established during the investigation. It is also not the case that there are any evidence of the involvement of Customs Brokers in tampering of the seals or in preparation of the forged Invoices or Examination Reports of the consignments. 5.4 No doubt CHA occupies a very important position in the customs house and he is supposed to safeguard the interest of both the importers exporters and that of the customs department. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporter as well as by the government agencies as has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court in K.M. Ganatra (supra) decision as relied upon by the department. Also that CHA cannot shy from the responsibilities and obligations casted upon them by law but at the same the impugned provisions of CBLR don not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be available to it from the exporter/importer. This Tribunal in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I G) reported as 2017 (354) ELT 447 has hled that CHA is not an inspector to weigh genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through Customs House. The decision fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as alleged to have been wrongly received by the exporters. 5.6 This Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench, in the case of Purshotam Chatrabhuj Thackar Vs. CC, Kandla, Final Order No. 10041 dated 04.01.2024 also held as follows : A perusal of the order shows that the charge against the appellant is that they had failed to verify the identity of the clients and functioning of the clients at the declared address and dealt with Mr. Lokesh Bansal and Mr. Tarun Jain who claimed to be the exporter. It was alleged that Mr. Tarun Jain was neither the IEC Holder of any of five firms including Ms Adinath Industries nor was holding any post in any of the such firm. The second ground is that address mentioned of IEC of Ms. Adinath Industries and Others were found to be non-existent. It is seen that the Commissioner in his order has observed that the appellant has failed to verify the antecedents of the exporters whereas there is a clear assertion on the part of the exporter that they had conducted the KYC on the basis of documents submitted by the exporter. There is no requirement under CBLR for the custom broker to physically verify the address. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
